P&Z Adjusting Proposal For Environmental Regulations 

By Andrew Gorosko

Based on comments from the public made at a November 5 hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is adjusting its proposal for new land use regulations that would require applicants to submit environmental impact reports on development applications involving subdivisions, resubdivisions, site development plans, and special permits.

P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean explained that state law covering land use agencies specifies that those agencies have a direct role in reviewing the environmental aspects of development applications, providing a legal basis for such land use rules.

George Benson, the town director of planning and land use, noted that various environmental issues that recently have been raised by a legal intervenor into the Hunter Ridge residential resubdivision proposal, are topics that P&Z had never raised when the commission was reviewing that development application several years ago.

Hunter Ridge is a 14-lot residential resubdivision proposed for a 30-acre site lying in an environmentally sensitive area between Mt Pleasant Road and Taunton Lake. P&Z initially rejected that construction proposal, after which the developer appealed the decision in Danbury Superior Court. An intervenor then entered the legal proceedings, raising various environmental concerns about the project. A judge has remanded the Hunter Ridge application to P&Z for consideration of those environmental issues.

P&Z members decided to create environmental protection regulations after considering the issues raised by the intervenor in the Hunter Ridge application. P&Z should address such issues when reviewing other development applications, according to Mr Benson.

Ms Dean noted that, in the past, when environmental issues had arisen over safety hazards posed by the presence of some vertical rockface at the Walnut Tree Village condominium complex on Walnut Tree Hill Road, P&Z members enlisted the services of an environmental expert for aid in solving those problems.

Ms Dean said she hopes that new environmental regulations would provide P&Z with a regulatory mechanism for consulting with environmental experts to prevent environmental problems.

Mr Benson noted that he had intentionally used some broad wording in the P&Z’s proposed environmental regulations to provide the P&Z with some latitude in reviewing projects. Besides those regulations, some environmental guidelines would be provided to applicants, he said.

Public Comment

Attorney Robert Hall, who often represents development applicants, pointed out to P&Z members that the legal notice that advertised the P&Z’s November 5 public hearing on the proposed environmental regulations contains a flaw in its terminology.

Ms Dean acknowledged that the terminology was flawed, adding that the legal notice would be republished to announce a second public hearing on the matter to be held on December 3.

Mr Hall also criticized the proposed environmental regulations as being “circular” in their terminology or being based on false logic.

Ms Dean said P&Z’s intent in creating environmental regulations is to keep development applications from eventually generating court appeals filed against the P&Z.

“We would like to keep these [applications] out of the courts,” she said.

Having such regulations in force would make for a “simpler situation” with land use applications, she said.

However, Mr Hall stressed that the P&Z must consider the limits of its environmental review powers, as described by state law.

Ms Dean explained that the intent of P&Z’s having such regulations is to allow it to review the environmental aspects of development proposals before developers spend large sums of money on engineering for a project.

Mr Hall urged that P&Z obtain a legal opinion concerning the possible scope of the commission’s environmental review powers. “You need to ascertain what is within your jurisdiction in your ‘planning commission’ function,” Mr Hall told P&Z members.

Ms Dean said P&Z’s proposed environmental regulations would be referred to attorney Robert Fuller for his review and comment.

Local developer and builder Kim Danziger told P&Z members that their proposed environmental regulations are not specific enough, adding that the wording of the proposal is vague. Mr Danziger urged that the proposal’s wording be much more specific.

Mr Danziger added that he supports the panel’s intent in creating the new rules.

In view of comments made at the hearing, Mr Benson said he would revise the proposed rules.

The proposed regulations will be rewritten to make them more structured, he said. In the revised version of the rules, applicants would be required to submit an “environmental impact report” to P&Z, rather than allowing land use staff members to decide whether such an environmental report would be required for a given application, Mr Benson said.

Revisions to the proposed rules would generally make the application requirements more specific, he said.

P&Z wants applicants to be more broadly mindful of environmental issues to aid the P&Z in deciding on development applications, said Ms Dean.

According to the proposed P&Z land use rules on environmental protection, an environmental impact report would address issues including: ecosystem fragmentation; plant and animal habitats; wildlife corridors; the transfer of water among watersheds; forest ecosystems; a natural resources inventory; species diversity; the presence of flora and fauna; the presence of threatened and endangered species; food chain disruptions; diminished species populations; changes in predator-prey relationships; and broadly, the environment, public health, and public safety.

Besides the environmental aspects of the Hunter Ridge application, environmental protection issues also recently surfaced as the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) was reviewing Sherman Woods, a 38-lot residential subdivision proposed for a rural 158-acre site in Sandy Hook in the area surrounded by Berkshire Road, Sugarloaf Road, Sherman Street, Still Hill Road, and Toddy Hill Road. The site has extensive wetlands and watercourses.

Residents living in that area stressed to the IWC the importance of environmentally protecting the rustic area in view of its proposed residential development. The IWC rejected the Sherman Woods proposal on environmental grounds on October 14. The developer has appealed the IWC’s rejection in Danbury Superior Court.

If the Sherman Woods project eventually gains a wetlands permit, it would also need to obtain a subdivision approval from the P&Z. If the P&Z’s proposed environmental regulations are in effect before the Sherman Woods applicant submits a subdivision application to the P&Z, the project would then be subject to those environmental rules.